Tuesday, 22 January 2013

"There is object proof that homosexuality is more interesting than heterosexuality. It's that one knows a considerable number of heterosexuals who would wish to become homosexuals, whereas one knows very few homosexuals who would really like to become heterosexuals."
—Michel Foucault

"Men are run ragged by female sexuality all their lives. From the beginning of his life to the end, no man ever fully commands any woman. It's an illusion. Men are pussy-whipped. And they know it. That's what the strip clubs are about; not woman as victim, not woman as slave, but woman as goddess."
—Camille Paglia

"The feminist line is, strippers and topless dancers are degraded, subordinated, and enslaved; they are victims, turned into objects by the display of their anatomy. But women are far from being victims — women rule; they are in total control ... the feminist analysis of prostitution says that men are using money as power over women. I'd say, yes, that's all that men have. The money is a confession of weakness. They have to buy women's attention. It's not a sign of power; it's a sign of weakness."
—Camille Paglia

"Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist."
—Camille Puglia

"Every man harbors an inner female territory ruled by his mother, from whom he can never entirely break free."
—Camille Paglia

"Nature is a Darwinian spectacle of the eaters and the eaten. All phases of procreation are ruled by appetite: sexual intercourse, from kissing to penetration, consists of movements of barely controlled cruelty and consumption. The long pregnancy of the human female and the protracted childhood of her infant, who is not self-sustaining for seven years or more, have produced the agon of psychological dependency that burdens the male for a lifetime. Man justifiably fears being devoured by woman, who is nature’s proxy."
—Camille Paglia

"The mystique of the femme fatale cannot be perfectly translated into male terms."
—Camille Paglia

"The Devil is a woman."
—Camille Paglia

"We have an evolutionary revulsion from slime, the site of our biologic origins. Every month, it is woman's fate to face the abyss of time and being, the abyss which is herself."
—Camille Paglia

"Western culture from the start has swerved from femaleness. The last western society to worship female powers was Minoan Crete. And significantly, that fell and did not rise again."
—Camille Paglia

"Modern liberalism suffers unresolved contradictions. It exalts individualism and freedom and, on its radical wing, condemns social orders as oppressive. On the other hand, it expects governments to provide materially for all, a feat manageable only by an expansion of authority and a swollen bureaucracy. In other words, liberalism defines government as tyrant father but demands it behave as nurturant mother. Feminism has inherited these contradictions."
—Camille Paglia

"Sexual freedom, sexual liberation. A modern delusion. We are hierarchical animals. Sweep one hierarchy away, and another will take its place, perhaps less palatable than the first."
—Camille Paglia

"The search for freedom through sex is doomed to failure."
—Camille Paglia

"Freud says: 'Man fears that his strength will be taken from him by woman, dreads becoming infected with her femininity and then proving himself a weakling.' Masculinity must fight off effeminacy day by day. Woman and nature stand ever ready to reduce the male to boy and infant."
—Camille Paglia

"One of feminism’s irritating reflexes is its fashionable disdain for 'patriarchal society', to which nothing good is ever attributed. But it is patriarchal society that has freed me as a woman. It is capitalism that has given me the leisure to sit at this desk writing this book. Let us stop being small-minded about men and freely acknowledge what treasures their obsessiveness has poured into culture."
—Camille Paglia

"Contemporary feminists, who are generally poor or narrowly trained scholars, insist on viewing history as a weepy scenario of male oppression and female victimization. But it is more accurate to see men, driven by sexual anxiety away from their mothers, forming group alliances by male bonding to create complex structures of society, art, science and technology."
—Camille Paglia

"When feminism and gay activism set themselves against organized religion, they have the obligation to put something better in its place."
—Camille Paglia

"[W]omen will never be taken seriously until they accept full responsibility for their sexuality."
—Camille Paglia

"Rape is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. Yet feminism, which has waged a crusade for rape to be taken more seriously, has put young women in danger by hiding the truth about sex from them."
—Camille Paglia

"I do not believe in God, but I believe God is man’s greatest idea. Those incapable of religious feeling or those (like hard-core gay activists) who profane sacred ground do not have the imagination to educate the young. Until the Left comes to its senses about the cultural power of religion, the Right will continue to broaden its appeal."
—Camille Paglia

"What feminism calls patriarchy is simply civilization, an abstract system designed by men but augmented and now co-owned by women."
—Camille Paglia

"Man has traditionally ruled the social sphere; feminism tells him to move over and share his power. But woman rules the sexual and emotional sphere, and there she has no rival. Victim ideology, a caricature of social history, blocks women from recognition of their dominance in the deepest, most important realm."
—Camille Paglia

"Films of the mating behavior of most other species — a staple of public television of America — demonstrate that the female chooses. Males pursue, show off, brawl, scuffle, and make general fools of themselves for love. A major failing of most feminist ideology is its dumb, ungenerous stereotyping of men as tyrants and abusers, when in fact — as I know full well from my own mortifying lesbian experience — men are tormented by women’s flirtatiousness and heming and hawing, their manipulations and changeableness, their humiliating rejections. Cock teasing is a universal reality. It is part of women’s merciless testing and cold-eyed comparison shopping for potential mates. Men will do anything to win the favor of women."
—Camille Paglia

"In pondering why a battered woman does not leave, we must remember that gay men with a taste for violent “rough trade” have always paid for this kind of sex. Are women so perfect and angelic that we cannot imagine them having sadomasochistic impulses? When they are genuinely victimized, women deserve our pity. But victimization alone cannot explain everything in the tragicomedy of love."
—Camille Paglia

"The idea that feminism — that liberation from domestic prison — is going to bring happiness is just wrong. Women have advanced a great deal, but they are no happier. The happiest women I know are not those who are balancing their careers and families, like a lot of my friends are. The happiest people I know are the women — like my cousins — who have a high school education, got married immediately graduating and never went to college. They are very religious and they never question their Catholicism. They do not regard the house as a prison. I look at my friends who are on the fast track. They are desperate, frenzied and frazzled, the most unhappy women who have ever existed. They work nights and weekends and have no lives. Some of them have children who are raised by nannies. The entire feminist culture says that the most important woman is the woman with an attache case. I want to empower the woman who wants to say, 'I'm tired of this and I want to go home.' The far right is correct when it says the price of women's liberation is being paid by the children."
—Camille Paglia

Sunday, 20 January 2013

“All women are prostitutes, and all men are punters. This is no tragedy, for it was always ever thus. The tragedy for a woman is to sell herself too cheaply or to price herself right out of the market. The tragedy for a man is to not get value for his money or do the equivalent of buying a car he cannot afford to run.”

Do you just get the feeling it was a woman who reported me? I wonder if it is still allowed to say that, on the whole, it seems that women are more censorious than men.

but you wouldn't expect a woman, especially if she is a slut, to agree, would you?

Perhaps I should have just asked the question:

“Are women prostitutes?”

This would no doubt have been considered offensive and attracted another Facebook punishment, so perhaps I should have asked the converse, which would have been:

“Are men punters?”

Then no one would have offended at all, because no one cares if men are insulted, only when women are.

What do men ever want from women but sex?

If it is the case that men are only ever after The One Thing, ie sex, then does that not make women prepared to give them sex if certain conditions are satisfied prostitutes?

If a woman has an official life-long exclusive contract then she is a wife, who has rather more onerous duties than a mere prostitute, since her side of the bargain will also involve housekeeping and childcare.

If she has a one-off contract then she is a prostitute if money changes hands after the act.

The woman who gives sex and does not ask for payment is a slut.

A prostitute should be considered a degree above a slut because the essence of a slut is that she is a fornicatress and stupid, while a prostitute at least had the sense to ask for money in return for the provision of sexual services.

If you allow stupid women to breed then their offspring will be half full of stupid slut genes and your society will be saddled with the stupid, learning-disabled and also the depraved.

This means the next generation will be degenerate and the one after that even more degenerate exponentially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth if you allow this practice to go unchecked, or, if you promote this practice through the aegis of the welfare state.

What is the other reason why is it a Bad Thing for women to give sex to men for free?

Because it corrupts their nature which in turn corrupts society.

When their society is corrupted they will desecrate marriage.

When they desecrate marriage they will lose their traditions.

When they lose their traditions they will lose their memory.

When they lose their memory they will suffer dementia.

When they suffer dementia their society, race, nations will be held in contempt by other societies, races and nations, and that will be the end of their civilisation.

So, this is the reason why sluts are a Bad Thing.

Did you know that feminism says it is OK for women to be sluts?

Did you know that some feminists would even deny the concept of a “slut” claiming that a woman has an absolute right to do anything with her body without being criticised for it?

Of course, these feminists do not think they owe society a duty, much less men, or children or the elderly, or anyone at all. These women are after all ambitious and selfish women who want to compete unfairly with men with the sledgehammer of totalitarian anti-discrimination legislation.

A slut is a fornicatress.

What is a fornicatress? A fornicatress is a woman who has sex with men not her husband.

Why is this a Bad Thing?

Because if we say it is OK for women to be fornicatresses then we will be swept away in a tsunami of sluttery and bastardy, even with the availability of modern contraception.

When you are overwhelmed by a tsunami of sluttery and bastardy it will no longer be socially acceptable to criticise sluts.

This is when your society loses its memory and forgets the meaning of fornication.

Remember: all fornicatresses are sluts, and sluts are stupid.

If sex were a drug, then a slut would be a drug-dealer who consumes her own stock and becomes a drug addict rather than finding an exclusive and regular customer who will pay her the highest price.

If you wonder why there is more crime and more learning-disabled people around now, look at the sluts around you who make bad reproductive choices by fucking maniacs and losers who are not their husbands and then neglect to bring up their illegitimate offspring properly because they are single mums.

Nor will they have enough children because they will be too busy being working mothers who will become divorced mothers who will become single mothers.

Many clever women will end up not having children at all, while the stupid ones breed in large numbers.

They are the cause of our Culture of Entitlement and Excuses.

They are also the cause of immigration because the indigenous working classes are no longer fit for purpose.

Why else do successive governments conspire to promote immigration even as they know their voters dislike it?

Because most of their voters are sluts and bastards or the sex partners, friends and family of sluts and bastards.

The leaders of political parties don’t want to offend these voters when all they want is a referendum on the EU, or a smaller state, or to repatriate other races, or whatever it is that they want.

After all, most men secretly or not so secretly like sluts because they lower the price of sex, which is what most men want from women most of the time, if they are not homosexual. Sluts, already having low standards of sexual morality will be indifferent to homosexual men having sex with each other, because they are too stupid to see that sexual liberation is bad for their society.

This rather explains why, in The Land of Compulsory Fornication that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland, most people do not find the very idea of “gay marriage” at all offensive.

“The lower the morals of women, the lower the morals of men.”

The Bhagavad Gita:

“Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil.”

Tuesday, 15 January 2013

It is an insult to the men who entered the competition too. I am sure she is very nice and charming and it was frightfully good of her to restrain herself from publishing the poems she wrote about her ex-husband who left her for another woman, but it is still SHIT poetry.

Is this yet another conclusive sign that we live in a matriarchy, this privileging of MEDIOCRITY just because this woman was supposed to have suffered?

I have a few old love poems I could inflict on my readership too, if I wanted to. They are probably shit too, but not as shit as Sharon Olds'.

Sharon Olds - mutton dressed as lamb. Could you bear it if your wife went around with her hair done like that?

" ... it is clear that a significant proportion of spree killers possess some conscious racial awareness, as demonstrated by their known history, their comments at the time or their choice of targets. Tellingly, the victims of the few black spree killers to date have been overwhelmingly white."

"During his trial Breivik was declared sane. What this means is that there was an absence of psychosis; technically psychosis involves detachment from reality. So Breivik's actions were not just carefully and rationally planned: his scheme followed a logical, grim progression.

Britain has no equivalent of America's NRA, and what advocates of gun freedom there are consist of a few specialist sportsmen. Notwithstanding, the point has been made that in practically every case, the weapons for use by spree killers have been licensed or otherwise legally in the possession of their owners. They were not criminals; in a large number of cases they were normal law-abiding citizens, perhaps even less criminal than average."

"It is well to recall the position in earlier, more masculine times. Hitler was able to stand and wave to adoring crowds as his procession passed along, this at a time when gun ownership was commonplace and limited only by the requirement that firearms be officially registered, a purely bureaucratic measure. Similarly, in Britain at this time guns were widely available. It was an era of greater social cohesion, during which spurious instincts, to the extent that they existed, were controlled. Nowadays even the Pope rides behind bullet-proof glass.

Restricting gun ownership is no solution, because a means to kill will always be found by the determined. Emphasising this, in October 2012, Matthew Tvrdon went on a hit-and-run spree in Cardiff using his vehicle and steering-wheel lock as weapons. Tvrdron deliberately aimed his van at pedestrians, sometimes even reversing back over the mostly women and children he had mown down. If we are to have any hope of preventing such killing sprees in the future, it is necessary first of all to understand the phenomenon.

The first question we need to ask is, how closely does Breivik fit the mould of the 'perfect' spree killer? The answer to this is - pretty closely. Breivik's only major deviation from the substandard pattern was to live to tell the tale, and in that at least he has done the world a service. I have no doubt that he is aware of this aspect and that it was intentional. Allowing his motivations to be examined subsequently was almost certainly his preferred outcome.

A distinguishable subset of spree killers includes psychotics and social outcasts ... However even these cases may not be completely divorced from the general trend: psychosis is a disorder of the mind, or higher brain, while the instincts (motivations) which impel the spree killer, I would contend, derive from a lower level."

"Western societies have become highly feminised ... Due to female influence, all forms of violence were strongly discouraged and thus were generally inhibited by males. Sometimes however sudden eruptions of disproportionate violence would occur, triggered by some relatively trivial incident. These seemed completely unpredictable; there was no forewarning that a 'tipping point' had been reached.

In such an intensely female-friendly environment, a number of factors operate. First, males see females unreservedly following their instincts and not unnaturally want to do the same. Needless to say, he cannot. Second, expression of those female instincts was usually to males' detriment: he could be, and was, manipulated, toyed-with and teased practically without limit. Third, he could not avoid being influenced by that atmosphere of disinhibition, and the burden of restraining his own violent and other socially undesirable instincts increased.

The confused and neurotic male is easy to manipulate. In that super-feminine environment, and increasingly elsewhere, even innocuous male instincts (such as to place indiscriminate markers, just being friendly or passing the time of day) are repressed. This is because disinhibition serves to maintain males in a state of generalised neurosis and maximises female control. The whole environment becomes arduous for males.

Humans are undeniably social animals, and arguably each race has a distinct collective unconscious. Jung, who at least had the wisdom to dissociate himself from Freud, spoke of the 'race memory' - or, to quote Heisenberg, 'Every race has its soul and every soul its race.' The next question we need to pose is, what is that strikes so deeply at this collective psyche to provoke an individual in a society to such casual atrocity? Clearly something along these lines is taking place: spree killings are no longer isolated incidents but have become a social phenomenon by their repetition. At least 75 spree killings have taken place since 1949.

A nationalist perspective would be that three obvious new features of Western societies are mass immigration, the promotion of miscegenation and miscegenation itself. As always, we put our observations of behaviour in its evolutionary context. What evolutionary scenario can be envisaged in which a male could see members of other races moving freely about, promoted to positions of authority over him, and occupying other prestigious roles? Or when might he see his women parading through thoroughfares with a male of another race, transporting children sired by him, and obviously serving his domestic and personal needs, while his own remain untended?

It is that the tribe has been defeated and cast into servitude. In this case, throughout history, the indigenous males would have been rapidly dispatched (put to the sword, or machete, or whatever) or quickly transported away to be sold as slaves. In any event the vanquished males would be hastily got out of the way, for obvious reasons. Their reaction at seeing their women expropriated, their families destroyed and their settlement exploited makes them dangerous to keep around. With nothing left to lose a humiliated male would, given any opportunity at all, strike back with maximum force. This would be without regard for his own future, for the simple reason that he has none.

In leading these social changes the media are probably the main offenders, so we would be naive to expect them to point the finger at themselves. Not only do they encourage and mendaciously portray as normal the mass immigration and miscegenation which strikes deeply at the core of the male psyche, but non-whites are elevated to the positions of newsreaders and presenters. This can only be a deliberate, finely calculated insult. It is surely stretching credulity to believe otherwise - think of the millions of native British men who would eagerly take such a well-paid and prestigious job!"

" ... Putatively the defining characteristic of the serial killer is control, because ultimate control is power over the life of another person. If he leaves some form of signature, this is an expression of his ego. The male desires control; this is how his ego is expressed. If powerful he issues orders and affects destinies. A craving for control seems to be the essential characteristic of the serial killer.

In contrast, the essence of the spree killer is rebellion against his devaluation. His protest at his derogation is expressed by the number of victims; his tally is a demonstration of his worth. In most cases the spree killer has already decided to end his life, either because of events immediately beforehand or as part of a long-standing plan. Circumstances have ceased to make his life worthwhile, and he raises the cost of his demise with a final statement of his value.

We can now consider his choice of targets in light of this, particularly his emergence in modern, feminised, Western societies. In the male-female 'game of opposites' I have referred to before, males value the old while females value the young. Thus in the feminine mindset, children are valued more than men. This has become especially manifest since the State has supplanted the husband as the female's protector and ultimate provider.

Female largesse extends to the many groups with which she feels affinity or sympathy. Yet practically everything that has ever been discovered or invented has arisen from white male ingenuity. Although virtually all our modern amenities derive from the efforts of exceptional males, our society could not function without ordinary men performing mundane jobs. Nevertheless in contemporary society he is constantly devalued and insulted; his concerns routinely dismissed.What more profound insult can be delivered to a man than for a woman to advertise that she prefers a male of an alien race, even who a century or so ago was called a savage, to seed future generations of her line? These are the provocations which can transform a normal, law-abiding and otherwise unexceptional man into a kind of Vulcan murder machine.

Thus in raising the cost of his demise, the spree killer can target the young, raising the cost according to the values of his opponent. Breivik's choice of target was coldly logical - since the State, as in this country has defined 'the invaders' as a protected group, any action against them will only increase their guardianship and exacerbate the situation he is rebelling against. Plus of course, information about where the blame really belongs is hard to come by. Pointing the finger can land you a jail sentence.

Even moderate critics of the Establishment's suicidal immigration policies are marginalised and vehemently traduced as 'racists', 'xenophobes' and the like .... Nationalists' concerns are ignored, or they are the theme of phony, stage-managed debate by a closed group of 'media darlings' who only repeat their stock agenda. The spree killer arises out of repressed fury at the despoilation of everything he is, has or holds dear; indeed spree killing might be regarded as the ultimate displacement activity.

Under this analysis it becomes apparent that fathers who destroy their children and then themselves, usually after the mother has spurned the marriage, are another form of spree killing. Including these personal tragedies adds significantly to the total number of spree killings already recorded."

" ... evolutionary psychology provides us with a reliable guide, and the tribal scenario above is consistent with phylogenetic (ie natural) principles and the gut instinct of many individual males. It has always been, and will ever be, the male who fights to preserve the integrity of the tribe.

The spree killer may be at the outer boundary of the range of normal human behaviour, but nonetheless his is the natural response of the social animal provoked beyond endurance. He is merely the forerunner, and until he is given legitimate expression of his valid and justified anger, and allowed to respond to the daily injustices and affronts he must presently endure, each new atrocity will only herald more to come."

Saturday, 12 January 2013

Look at the fonts. They are intended to suggest the childish writing of a dyslexic child.

Why was it done in this pathetic "I am a child and I am hurt, don't hurt me any more" way?

Because the man who put this together is afraid of feminists and wishes to avoid their wrath.

To be a man, one must fight.

To fight, one must be bold and acquire strength, not whinge like a woman and say "I am only a woman, so please don't hurt me for saying that" as this contemptible webpage for men's mental health seems to be saying.

Of course, whoever it is who started the page is FUCKED IN THE HEAD to even think of presenting the case for men in that contemptibly piteous way.

Thursday, 10 January 2013

Teaching Compassion and Empathy to Children

Are children naturally empathetic? Can you teach care and compassion? Jenni speaks to Nikkola Daniel, aneducation consultant who works in schools, teaching social and emotional literacy and Elizabeth Hartley Brewer, author of a number of parenting books and child development expert.

Definition of multiple orgasms: experiencing orgasms within half a minute to a minute apart, which is quite close together. Each orgasm in a multiple session doesn't have to be earth shattering, it can be waves of pleasure, or even tension releases, we all experience orgasms differently and at different intensities, so multiple orgasms also vary with each individual.

How long is a piece of string, ladies?

Some of you think it is having more than one orgasm in one "session", and there was I thinking it was having "one orgasm half a minute to a minute apart".

It sounds a bit like the Holy Grail of Sex to me. It seems that the person who invented this concept of the multiple orgasm invented it to keep us chasing rainbows.

Caren Grown is senior gender advisor in the Bureau of Policy, Planning and Learning, where she leads USAID’s efforts to integrate gender equality and female empowerment throughout the agency’s policies and programs.

Is this woman either stupid or evil and should she be stopped?

Is the Matriarchal West not already suffering from a surfeit of feminism, makings its people degenerate, its industries uncompetitive, its government incompetent and its institutions corrupt?

Is it quite right to offer someone who is already intoxicated and suffering from cirrhosis of the liver more alcohol? (Publicans and doctors will already know the correct answer to this question.)

It seems that A N Wilson does not make the connection between extremist feminism and the Sex Revolution. I do not know if this is through not seeing the connection or fearing to make the connection or a reluctance to point out that the Empress's New Clothes are not clothes at all and do not become her one bit.

Which of the above is it, Andrew?

A patriarchy is a society in which male promiscuity is condoned.

A matriarchy is a society in which female promiscuity is condoned, and even encouraged. A matriarchy is also a society in which even alpha males are afraid of criticising sluts, because sluts and bastards would then be in the majority. Does any party leader of any political party in this country criticise sluts? Of course not. We know who is in power by those whom we cannot criticise: SLUTS.

Are we a patriarchy or a matriarchy? What do you think, dear reader?

Which is the lesser evil?

What must you do, if you are a rational person, when confronted with two evils, one greater than the other?

Sally Feldman

Sally Feldman is on the editorial board of New Humanist and a trustee of the Rationalist Association. She is Head of the School of Media, Arts and Design at the University of Westminster, and used to edit Woman's Hour on BBC Radio 4.

Sally Feldman:

"Girls who giggle at the geography teacher attempting to stretch a condom over a Bunsen burner may well be enthralled at Sugar's blow-by-blow guide to oral sex. Unsuitable? Inappropriate? Not according to the Government, which is about to launch a new scheme that will include oral sex lessons, after a trial showed it was successful in helping to reduce sexual intercourse among 16year olds."

How long has this DISGUSTING and immoral woman been corrupting the morals of British women?

How long did she work at Woman's Hour?

She has certainly corrupted her daughter's, who is now officially a SLUT and a FORNICATRESS, according to her proud mother. She will probably soon be an SSM too from the sound of things, if she is not one already.

I would certainly be very surprised to discover that Sally Feldman's daughter's biological father is still married and living with her mother. If Ms Feldman's husband were indeed still residing in the matrimonial home, then he must be a very contemptible man indeed, with no morals or moral courage, and happy to let his wife allow his own daughter to become a slut, and an under-aged slut at that. If he has been used as sperm bank and then sent on his way, then there is not much you can expect a man in this position to do except move on and go gay, probably.

Perhaps in future mothers and fathers who are out and proud that their daughter is a slut should be prosecuted under the Sexual Offences Act 2003

Child sex offences

Section 9 Sexual activity with a child

(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual, and
(c) either—
(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii) B is under 13.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved—
(a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,
(b) penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,
(c) penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body, or
(d) penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis,
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
(3) Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally arranges or facilitates something that he intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in any part of the world, and
(b) doing it will involve the commission of an offence under any of sections 9 to
13
(2) A person does not commit an offence under this section if—
(a) he arranges or facilitates something that he believes another person will do, but that he does not intend to do or intend another person to do, and
(b) any offence within subsection (1)(b) would be an offence against a child for whose protection he acts.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person acts for the protection of a child if he acts for the purpose of—
(a) protecting the child from sexually transmitted infection,
(b) protecting the physical safety of the child,
(c) preventing the child from becoming pregnant, or
(d) promoting the child’s emotional well-being by the giving of advice,
and not for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or for the purpose of causing or encouraging the activity constituting the offence within subsection (1)(b) or the child’s participation in it.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

It is a delicious thought, is it not, that a woman like her could get a nice long prison sentence for corrupting the morals of her daughter and the nation, if all the elements of the crime listed above are satisfied?

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was already in place when her daughter had under-aged sex too. How old was her daughter in 2004 when that confession was written?

All that is required is for the police to arrest her and the CPS can do the rest. Sally Feldman has after all already confessed. I wonder what has become of Sally Feldman's daughter. We already know she is a slut, but is she now also an SSM? If she is, then it would be conclusive that she has corrupted the morals of her own daughter as well as the morals of countless British women who have been subjected to the kind of moral poison she and women of her ilk have been spreading for decades now.

Let us hope that this little scenario I have illustrated will give her and women like her pause for thought.

Sunday, 6 January 2013

"Much has been said in feminist circles about how women are oppressed by patriarchy. Patriarchy literally means “rule by fathers” and is a system where men effectively are in control of property and decision-making. An important characteristic of patriarchal systems is that they are generally also patrilineal (a child’s descent is described by who his father, and father’s father were, rather than through the mother’s line).

The question I'm putting forth here is: Does the patriarchal/patrilineal system act more to oppress women, or is it actually more a way for women to tap and control male energy? My assertion is that patriarchal society creates an incentive structure that enables women to harness male energy and initiative for the benefit of women and their children.

In classic patriarchal cultures, men are motivated to amass wealth through the acquisition and enhancement of productive facilities: land, ships, businesses – things that will produce revenue to support a family, and which will provide an inheritance to pass along to their children. Part of the motivation is from love and emotional attachment. A large part of it is also pride and self-image -- the desire to leave a legacy, to be remembered as a great person after he's gone."

Let us be clear about what the rules of morality are for: they are for the perpetuation of your society, your nation, your civilisation and the human race.

Anyone who says they don't care about any of the above should really have their views ignored and be branded a fool.

There may be men who do not wish to behave like men and women who do not wish to behave like women. There may be people who are gay, who do not want to get married and do not want to have children. They should be TOLERATED, but they must never be allowed to think themselves the superiors OR EVEN THE EQUALS of those who marry, become parents and bring up the next generation.

Feminism has always been about rejecting the option of marriage and embracing the option of financial independence. These selfish and ambitious women do not care about the quality of their offspring or the quality of the next generation. Feminism is the cause of widespread illegitimacy and national degeneracy.

Those of you who do not see this or refuse to see this are probably all young and wish to "explore your sexuality". I am sure you can still explore your sexuality in the brothels that will be available when feminism is dead and gone.

Have you noticed how much feminists dislike brothels? They want to be the ones who are in complete control of the supply of sex, you see. That is why they are thinking of criminalising the buyer but not the seller of sex.

Playing to our strength as the authoritative organisation for up-to-date research on marriage in the UK, we are staging this important conference on February 15th, 2013. The future of marriage is clouded by the prevalence of many myths and a conspiracy of silence around some key issues. This conference therefore explores the myths and realities that currently shape both debate about marriage and the choices of people as they form and dissolve relationships.The Conference is being held in the London HQ of Notre Dame University at 1 Suffolk Street, SW1Y 4HG, just off Trafalgar Square. This fine location was originally built for the United University Club. The first session will begin at 09.30 and the day will end at 16.30. There will be ample opportunity to engage in debate and discussion. Tickets cost £40, which includes lunch, tea and coffee, etc. Please click http://www.marriagefoundation.org.uk/Web/OnlineStore/Product.aspx?ID=142&RedirectUrl=~%2fWeb%2fOnlineStore%2fProducts.aspx%3fCatID%3d11 to book a ticket.

The speakers will include: Sir Paul Coleridge, Baroness Deech, Professor Rebecca Probert and Professor Anne Barlow. During the course of the day there will be opportunities to interact with speakers and other attendees. Check back to this page as we update fuller details of the conference programme and participants in the new year.

Paul Coleridge
The Marriage Foundation is rooted in the vision and concern of Paul Coleridge, its Chairman and Founder. Sir Paul was appointed a High Court judge in the Family Division in 2000 after thirty years as a family law specialist barrister. He deals with complex cases of family break up, especially those which involve children.

Ruth Deech
Baroness Deech DBE is a British academic, lawyer and bioethicist. She is currently Professor of Law at Gresham College, London and Chair of the Bar Standards Board. She has recently highlighted the conspiracy of silence which limits open and factually-informed discussion of the consequences of family breakdown.

It is also very interesting that Baroness Deech has blocked me on Twitter, presumably to avoid answering my questions viz

Should fault be reintroduced into divorce?

Should the law require a marriage contract to be agreed before recognising a marriage?

What possible motive has this woman for ignoring my questions? Could it be because she does not understand them? Or is she AFRAID to answer them? If it is really the case that she is legally ignorant, then why on earth has she her highfalutin titles?]

Rebecca Probert
Professor of law at the University of Warwick, Rebecca Probert's recent work has recently shown that mass cohabitation is entirely a modern phenomenon. She has also written on the 'common-law marriage myth' and is currently addressing the question of whether legal rights should be accorded to relationships outside marriage and, if so, how they should be defined.

[CK: OF COURSE legal rights should NOT be accorded to relationships outside marriage if you are genuinely intent on reconsecrating marriage. Common sense should tell you what an idiotic idea it is.]

Anne Barlowe
Professor of law at Exeter University Anne Barlowe is an expert in the future of family law and policy. She has a particular interest in the regulation of adult relationships such as cohabitation and marriage. She has recently co-authored an article 'Is Modern Marriage a Bargain? Exploring Perceptions of Pre-Nuptial Agreements in England and Wales'.

[CK: Only a very foolish man would marry now if he has any money and is worth marrying. In fact, it is now time for men to go on an OFFICIAL marriage strike mentioned at http://www.facebook.com/groups/121566994537384/?fref=ts. Who would want to enter into a contract whereby the wealthier partner automatically forfeits half of his property and can be deprived of his children by malicious and false claims of child sexual abuse by his spouse? To reintroduce the fault into divorce, simply require that all who wish to marry agree a marriage contract. Such a simple and effective solution will predictably be vociferously resisted by the feminists.]

Why is this conference overwhelmingly dominated by female lawyers? Have Mesdames Probert and Barlowe ever been married? If so, what do their current spouses think of them as wives?
And if either of them are now divorced, what did their former husbands think of their divorce settlement? Why is Sir Paul Coleridge even bothering with this charade?]

"As a feminist, perhaps we have been ambivalent about families. In the 1980s, we used to say: 'A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.' The more academic version was: 'The family is the site of women's oppression.' So those of us who came of age at the height of feminism had very mixed views about the family, since it seemed to be defined as a heterosexual thing with a certificate, children and mum at home."

Subtext: "Feminists regard marriage and family as oppression and despise women who are housewives and stay-at-home mothers."

"The days of your mum living next door are over, due to lack of available housing, so young women cast around as a way of measuring themselves as mothers. Because they don't have a nan, or sisters, or aunties dropping in every day with a narrative of what being a mum is, they watch TV to try to find out. And the narrative from TV is about the brands that you can buy for your children.

Subtext: "Feminism has led to the normalisation of the working mother, which has led to the normalisation of the divorced mother which in turn has lead to the normalisation of single parenthood - an undeniably substandard form of parenting. In pre-feminist days, female relations might have helped plug the holes in the substandard parenting of the single mother, but no longer since families no longer stay together and no one has time for each other any more, because these days most women, even mothers, are expected to work."

"There are these young mums that do not necessarily read to their children, they do not take them to the library, but they think they are good mums because their children are dressed in brand names from top to bottom, and that is because their narrative for being a good mum comes from the media. If your seven-year-old has Nike trainers and an Adidas jumper that makes you a good mum. It permeates people – you are defined by the brands you wear.

Subtext: "The working woman has fuelled consumerism and the culture of consumerism with its obsession with brand names - these are shallow values of empty consumerism. These morally empty values have filtered through to the next generation, instead of moral values that would help bring about social cohesion and social stability that would secure the future of the nation."

"As a young leftwinger I never thought I would see the point of school uniform, but you get less of that pressure to have this designer brand or the other. There is something wrong when the average child knows 300 or 400 brand names before the age of 11. It is terrible the way children's lives are saturated by materialism."

Subtext: "I was a leftwing feminist but now I am an older and wiser as well as a mother who has a son whose future I care about. I now see the destruction that feminism has wreaked on British society. Duty now compels me to speak out. At least I dare to speak on controversial matters, unlike the current leader of the Labour Party who has distinguished himself only by his lack of courage and imagination in the role. It is after all my duty as a politician, to raise important issues that would otherwise not be discussed by cowardly politicians who prefer to avoid controversy."